There May Be an Ancient Earth Inside Earth, Say Harvard Scientists

So I read a few of the links and at one point they we're talking about a place called "eden" with the really big trees and fruit.....anyone think that was the place the bible meant?

Thankyou for this, it was an interesting read and opens up all sorts of possibilities! What if the earth within earth is/was eden?? Or where heaven is actually located! We are always told that heaven is up and hell is down, what if its the other way round?! If you prescribe to a Christian world view of course

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Everyone, please click on the OP's link and read the article. Please.

They are not saying the Earth is hollow and that there is another "world" down there in the traditional sense.

They are saying that they think the entire Earth's crust was not turned molten when the giant impact happened, and mixed up with the mantle, but instead that a good chunk of the original Earth's crust survived.

Over time, much of that original crust subducted, and they are finding traces of it when they drill.

The article is not about a hollow Earth, or anything like that.

Oh... Well you never know, after all science isn't always an exact science

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: rickymouse
Actually, the dinosaurs didn't really have to have lived here, the dead dinosaurs could have been strewn all over the planet from this collision, much later than we think. Lots of things could upend what we think of as reality.

Uhmmmmm....the moon forming impact happened several billions of years before dinosaurs existed.......

Dinos didn't show up until about 230 million years ago.

Yes, but dinosaurs is about about gigantism too and there are theories on that, so they can have much smaller ancestors. The dates are constantly changing anyway, latest is 300 million years, and before that, 240/250million years. and so on.
But the thing is here, the whole age process is moot, if there is a true anomaly about the formal understanding of the way of not just the Earth, but the Solar system in general was formed.
The key words are here,
"Professor Mukhopadhyay remarked: “This implies that the last giant impact did not completely mix the mantle and there was not a whole mantle magma ocean.”
I don't see why that you could not extrapolate from that why Theia could not have been the solid, or semi-solid itself. Either way, it all kind of cocks things up though.

originally posted by: SixX18
Dinosaurs being aliens is a good twist, I LIKE IT! But didn't scientists discover some modern day animals are related to dinos? Turkey = Raptor a reply to: nighthawk1954

LOL well..

I cant say Alien ..

but Look of how the Atmosphere and Environment they have Lived in in their Era..

and the Immense Size of them the Largest .. Dinosaur's

Was Earth a Lesser Gravity Environment at One Time?

And what Type of Atmosphere did they Breath ? a Richter Oxygen percentage .

I do say I like the Expanding Earth Theory instead of The Pangaea Theory ..

THE EARTH IS GROWING AND EXPANDING RAPIDLY

by

EXTERNAL ACCRETION
www.expanding-earth.org...

Expanding Earth
en.wikipedia.org...

A kinda somewhat Hollow Earth kinda way..

Dinosaurs and the Expanding earth
www.dinox.org...

The size of today’s life is limited by gravity. A reduced gravity would lessen the weight of life and enable the relative scale of all life to become larger. For example, the largest carnivore or vegetarian animal of today would naturally evolve to a larger size in a reduced gravity.

www.dinox.org...

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Granite

Just because an object rings when struck it does not means that the object is hollow.

Take a pot and fill it with water. The pot will still ring when struck.

Take a glass and fill it with sand. The glass will still ring when struck.

Sorry but these are terrible and easily dismissable analogies.

And also sound like science that is being shutdown, in favor of some really rather boring arguments, that cannot be proven in any way shape or form.

Fact, rings like a bell, Another Fact, no one in Science knows why, and thirdly none of the official explanations of what is inside the earth at 1000 miles can be believed AT ALL.

Funny I got in such trouble in science class for scoffing at everyone...

These arguments are much like the logic behind those who believe 9/11 went off as told.

a reply to: ParasuvO

none of the official explanations of what is inside the earth at 1000 miles can be believed AT ALL.

You can call them terrible analogies and dismiss it all you want. I don't really care what you want to believe.

I can admit they were simplified comparisons. I kept it simple because my comments were slightly off topic to begin with.

Please explain why you think my examples are so terrible. Because nothing in your comments falsifies what I said.

If you have a valid point I missed it. I have 2 basic questions for you.

1. Where does lava come from?

2. What causes the Earth's Magnetic field?

a reply to: MagicWand67
Yea but it says rings.....like...a.BELL.
not glass with sand

a reply to: prevenge

LOL ...... so what? What's your point?

It also said "like a bell or a gong"

a reply to: Char-Lee
That's a pretty sad case of quote mining because right before that quote it says: "it is what we consider to be a very good vacuum on Earth. In fact, the density of the atmosphere at the moon's surface is comparable to the density of the outermost fringes of Earth's atmosphere where the International Space Station orbits."

This means it can't conduct sound which was the point he was trying to make. I usually don't argue against people who say the moon has no atmosphere nor people who say it does have one because they're both right, depending on context and if they understand the moon's "atmosphere" is considered a very good vacuum on Earth.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I'm with you on Agartha. My parents live about 30 minutes from Mt Shasta and I so want to go exploring for the entrance.

I want to believe!

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I'm with you on Agartha. My parents live about 30 minutes from Mt Shasta and I so want to go exploring for the entrance.

I want to believe!

I would so go and explore if I was that close! I just think the whole idea is neat and I am glad I am not the only one. Sometimes folks look at you like you have lost your mind when you say something like that! At least if I am losing my mind.... I won't be quite as alone in that loss.

originally posted by: prevenge
a reply to: MagicWand67
Yea but it says rings.....like...a.BELL.
not glass with sand

and by "rings like a bell " they are referring to the physical property of resonance both the glass of sand and the glass of water have a resonance , as do the earth and the moon no ?

Anyways did anyone see the Nazi map showing the entrance to the inner earth in the antarctic ,it was here on ATS a while back , dont know if its been debunked yet


www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: sapien82

Not sure if this what you're talking about. But this thread has few maps.

Ancient Maps That Shouldn't Exist

a reply to: MagicWand67

hey yeh I edited my post the original thread is there now !
check it out its very interesting

I have noticed some alchemical symbols stamped in red on the map
quite interesting and extremely well made even if it is a hoax
perfect right down to the fraktur typeface the nazi party used.

a reply to: smurfy

You realize they are talking about an object roughly the size of Mars striking the Earth right?

a reply to: nighthawk1954

lol all there saying is that the isotopes they find the deeper and lower you go are different then what they would expect or what they projected it would be there nor are they so evened out. What there really saying is that the mixture are not fitting in what would happen if another planet crashed into this one to create the moon you see above you, and posing it such a way that its a new finding instead of a flawed assumption in the first place. And so instead of in the prehistory of this planet when Thea or whatever planet crashed into this one and created one giant mess and this planet was a flowing mixing magma mess, now there saying only half the planet was really effected. And the other half? Not so much effected, obviously they do not really grasp the effects of two planets colliding, lets just say there is little left of either when that happens. Basically what they thought they would find in the earths core and the mantle turns out to be different then expected. And so, the theories have to change a bit to suit actual findings.

Its science at its best. I suppose. But hey who knows, I wonder what will happen if they dig up more evidence and find out that the moon the earth are totally unrelated, one day who knows they could just figure out that the moon was put into orbit around this planet some hundred of thousands of years ago and may be completely unrelated in its composition to planet earth in fact they may have in there origins nothing to do with one another. I suppose that would throw a proverbial cosmic monkey ranch into there theories then.

There is not any remnant of any planet within the earth. Scientist are trying way too hard to make the collision theory work. The problem is they are off in left field. Scientists are obsessed with asteroid impacts. They are missing the real culprit. VOLCANOES.

The moon was formed by multiple giant volcanic eruptions on earth. Volcanic Mass Ejection. VME. Massive Phreatic Eruptions.

(one day, one day)

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: smurfy

You realize they are talking about an object roughly the size of Mars striking the Earth right?

You are correct I think you'll probably find I mention that in a post elsewhere.

This collision was known as the big splash, with enough energy to melt both planets, the tricky bit is also how solid either planet was in the first place. The other thing is that the collision appears to have made this 'second' Earth all the better a place for life.... Creationism? or just a collision of some kind.

Some more reading here, much the same as the OP's, maybe just a little healthy criticism added.

news.nationalpost.com... -to-life/

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This means it can't conduct sound which was the point he was trying to make.

And my point was that is not an accurate description of the moon.

After all he said this:

The information is available to anyone who bother to investigate which they should do before propagating the myth.